JCM Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, J. W.
Right arrow Articles by Persing, D. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, J. W.
Right arrow Articles by Persing, D. H.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, August 2000, p. 3022-3028, Vol. 38, No. 8
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Comparative Evaluation of Three Human Immunodeficiency Virus Genotyping Systems: the HIV-GenotypR Method, the HIV PRT GeneChip Assay, and the HIV-1 RT Line Probe Assay

John W. Wilson,1,* Pamela Bean,2 Terry Robins,3 Frank Graziano,4 and David H. Persing5

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota1; Millennium Strategies2 and Division of Immunology/Infectious Diseases, University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics,4 Madison, Wisconsin; Specialty Laboratories, Inc., Santa Monica, California3; and Corixa Corporation/Infectious Diseases Research Institute, Seattle Life Sciences Center, Seattle, Washington5

Received 23 December 1999/Returned for modification 20 March 2000/Accepted 14 May 2000

Evaluation of drug resistance by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genotyping has proven to be useful for the selection of drug combinations with maximum antiretroviral activity. We compared three genotyping methods for identification of mutations known to confer drug resistance in the reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease genes of HIV type 1 (HIV-1). The HIV-GenotypR method (GenotypR; Specialty Laboratories, Inc., Santa Monica, Calif.) with the ABI 377 DNA sequencer (Applied Biosystems Inc.), the HIV PRT GeneChip assay (GeneChip; Affymetrix, Santa Clara, Calif.), and the HIV-1 RT Line Probe Assay (LiPA; Innogenetics, Alpharetta, Ga.) were used to genotype plasma samples from HIV-infected patients attending the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics and the Mayo Clinic. At the time of analysis, patients were failing combination therapy (n = 18) or were treatment naive (n = 6). Forty codons of the RT and protease genes were analyzed by GenotypR and GeneChip for resistance-associated mutations. LiPA analyzed seven RT codons for mutations. Each sample was genotyped by all three assays, and each assay was subjected to pairwise comparisons. At least 92% of the codons tested (by the three assays) in paired comparisons were concordant. GenotypR and GeneChip demonstrated 96.6% concordance over the 40 codons tested. GenotypR identified slightly more mutations than GeneChip and LiPA; GeneChip identified all primary mutations that corresponded to failing treatment regimens. Each assay identified at least 84% of the mutations identified by the other assays. Mutations that were discordant between the assays mainly comprised secondary mutations and natural polymorphisms. The assays had better concordance for mutations that corresponded to current failing regimens, present in the more predominant viral quasispecies. In the treatment-naive patients, GenotypR, GeneChip, and LiPA mainly identified wild-type virus. Only the LiPA identified K70R, a possible transmitted zidovudine resistance mutation, in the RT gene of a treatment-naive patient. We conclude that although discrepancies in results exist between assays, each assay showed a similar capacity to identify potentially clinically relevant mutations related to patient treatment regimens.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St., SW, Rochester, MN 55905. Phone: (507) 255-7762. Fax: (507) 255-7767. E-mail: wilson.john{at}mayo.edu.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, August 2000, p. 3022-3028, Vol. 38, No. 8
0095-1137/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.


This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2000 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.